黃昭元2006-07-252018-07-052006-07-252018-07-052002http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/12825審查標準的決定與適用是法院在進行 違憲審查時經常要面對的難題之一，在操 作方法上，則有美國式的類型化與德國式 的概念操作兩種主要方式。本計畫以美國 法為研究對象，並選擇言論自由、平等權 及參政權三種權利類型，分析檢討美國法 院對於這類案件所適用的審查標準。 本研究發現：美國法院在審查言論自 由案件時，就無關言論內容的管制，固然 是修正適用O ’Brien Test ，但仍相當常見個 案衡量。因此在方法上，應該有進一步類 型化的必要。至於平等權部份，本計畫先 就種族與性別分類進行研究，結果發現美 國法院對於種族分類近來似乎一律採取嚴 格審查標準，而不區別是否為優惠性差別 待遇；而性別分類則採中度審查標準。本 研究認為：就種族優惠性差別待遇並不應 該適用嚴格審查標準，而應放鬆而改採中 度審查標準。至於參選限制部份，本研究 發現美國法院在一九八三年之後，似有放 棄嚴格審查而採個案衡量的趨勢，對此本 研究也持不同的看法。The issue of choosing an appropriate standard of review has been central to the judicial review, particularly in practice. In theory, there are two different methodologies to approach this issue: the U.S. courts tend to adopt the approach of “bottom-up ” categorization in deciding the standards of review, while the German courts have been used to a “top-down,” balancing test of “proportionality principle.” This project chooses the following three types of constitutional rights, freedom of speech, right to equal protection and political rights, and analyze their standards of review as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The research finds that the U.S. Supreme Court has applied the O ’Brien Test to review the constitutionality of the “content-neutral ” restrictions. However, this research suggests that further categorization based might be worth of consideration for more predictable standards. Regarding the equal protection cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently developed a consistent position to apply the strict scrutiny test to the all racial discrimination cases, including the race-based affirmative action, while applying the intermediate scrutiny test to the gender discrimination cases. However, this research argues that the standard of review should be relaxed with respect to the race-based affirmative action. Finally, the research finds that the U.S. Supreme Court seems to change its standard from the previous strict scrutiny test to an ad hoc balancing test after the Anderson case of 1983. The research holds a different and critical view on such a change.application/pdf41698 bytesapplication/pdfzh-TW國立臺灣大學法律學系暨研究所審查標準平等保障優惠性差 別待遇種族平等性別平等言論自由與內容無關的管制參政權參選限制Standards of ReviewEqual ProtectionAffirmative ActionRacial EqualityGender EqualityFreedom of SpeechContent-Neutral RestrictionsPolitical RightsRestrictions on Candidacy[SDGs]SDG5[SDGs]SDG16reporthttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/12825/1/902414H002017.pdf